About your Search

20121112
20121120
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6 (some duplicates have been removed)
of value for what i pay. >> bill: they say we're doing this in the legacy of ronald reagan. bull you know what. ronald reagan raised taxes five times. >> reagan would have no place in the current republican party given some of the things they did. grover norquist holds him up as an icon. grover is in a completely different place than he is on taxes. >> bill: why don't the media expose these people as the liars and hypocrites that they are? >> because they're fair and balanced. >> bill: so are we going over the fiscal cliff? >> i think we are. i think we are. for a couple of reasons. one, there's not a whole lot of time. it is six weeks from tomorrow to the start -- >> bill: they don't have any backbone. >> that's number two. number three 80 lame ducks who may not show up to vote. plus you've got this stale -- continuing stalemate on tax and spending policies and then on top of everything else, it is not really a fiscal cliff. it is a fiscal slope. it stays in place. they called it a cliff but the damage to
was it, 1982 or 1983, back in the 1980's, tip o'neill and ronald reagan got together and made adjustments to social security that saved the program. that's my point. sometimes you need to adjust and change to save the very thing you care most about. and so tip o'neill didn't sell out the democratic party by embracing that agreement. the democrats in congress, many of them very progressive at that time who supported it, didn't work traders to the party. if we do it in a responsible way, a balanced and doesn't just gut the programs and just not all entitlement reform with no revenue, i think the base of the party and leaders and organized labor will understand. they also know the alternative is doing nothing, with bad damage to jobs and the economy. and ultimately insolvency of these programs themselves, or. b, the right wing of the republicans are coming in and taking over because we have done nothing to solve the problem and their answer to the solution would be much more draconian. host: jack. he's our first phone call for the senator. republican. go ahead. caller: mr. bayh, one question
-carrying member of the aarp. ronald reagan was 69 when he first ran for president. many worried he was too old for the job until his famous quip during a debate. >> i will not make age an issue of this campaign. i am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent's youth and inexperience. >> yes, reagan used age to his advantage. but seriously, how old is too old? remember senator strom thurman who commuted from walter reed to the capitol at the age of 100? his aides had to vote for him. of course, this argument isn't limited to the world of politics. ageism rages in the role world, too. how often have you heard those under 30 grumbling about those old guys sucking up all the jobs? so the talk back question of the day, should politicians have a mandatory retirement age? facebook.com/carolcnn. your responses later this hour. still the most dependable, longest-lasting full-size pickups on the road. and now we've also been recognized for lowest total cost of ownership -- based on important things, like depreciation, fuel, and maintenance costs. and now trade up to get a 2012 chevy silv
s, of considers under ronald reagan and george w. bush's tax rates in 2003. it's interesting, i found two universal effects of those tax cuts. first, in every instance we cut the rates, the economy worked faster. it did work, mr. president, we got a lot of growth. but the second may be more interesting, is that guess what happened to the share of taxes paid by the rich. they went up, in fact, if you want to get more money, mr. president, out of rich people, cut their tax rate, don't raise them, because history proves it. >> dave: certainly did in the reagan years and another peace in the wall street journal a couple back, clinton rates, raised top tier 39.6 and as the authors of that piece said produced the one period of shared prosperity not because they raised taxes, but certainly lead to growth, right? >> no question. the 1990's was a prosperous era, but i think that sometimes people get a little of that history wrong what happened in the 1990's, president clinton raised taxes in the first year in office and remember, the first two years in office were a catastrophe and in fa
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)